Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
